Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
Date: 2020-11-03 20:53:30
Message-ID: CAApHDvqiusDMB37H9VRLCjUWrji3sxFy_Tma7_R0twoAp-kRrg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 20:08, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-09-29 11:26, David Rowley wrote:
> > I've marked this patch back as waiting for review. It would be good if
> > someone could run some tests on some intel hardware and see if they
> > can see any speedup.
>
> What is the way forward here? What exactly would you like to have tested?

It would be good to see some small scale bench -S tests with and
without -M prepared.

Also, small scale TPC-H tests would be good. I really only did
testing on new AMD hardware, so some testing on intel hardware would
be good.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-11-03 21:39:42 Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-11-03 20:44:10 Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits